IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2009 ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO._2593 OF 2009 (CRL.M.P. NO. 5493 OF  2009)

RAJENDRAN …           APPELLANT

VERSUS

N. MOHANAN & ANR. ...                 RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

This  appeal  is  directed against final  order dated 26th May, 2008 passed by a learned

Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1609 of 2008.

By the impugned order, the learned Judge, while upholding the conviction of the appellant for

an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the

Act”), has modified the sentence awarded to the appellant and he has been sentenced to pay a

fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The appellant has been permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the trial Court or

pay directly  the compensation amount to the respondent/complainant within six months of the

date of the order. It has been further directed that if the appellant fails to deposit or pay the said

amount within the time granted, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of

default sentence.

Learned  counsel  for  the  parties  submit  that  during  the  pendency  of  this  appeal,  the

parties have entered into a compromise and in terms of the said compromise, entire amount has

been  received  by  the  respondent.  Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  respondent

No.1/complainant affirms the stand taken by learned counsel for the appellant and states that

the respondent has no claim against the appellant.  Learned counsel pray that in view of the said

compromise, the offence under Section 138 of the Act may be compounded and the conviction of

the appellant be set aside.

Having regard to the statement made by the learned counsel for both the parties, we are

of  the  view that  there is  no  reason not  to  accept  the  compromise  entered  into between the

parties. The offence under Section 138 of the Act being compoundable,  we allow the prayer

made on behalf  of  the contesting parties and dispose  of  the appeal  on the basis  of  the said

settlement.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed by holding that since the matter has been compromised

between the parties and the amount in terms of the said compromise is said to have been paid

towards full and final settlement of complainant’s demand, the appellant is entitled to acquittal.

The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below is set aside and the appellant

is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

It  appears  from  the  surrender  certificate  filed  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  that  the

appellant is lodged in Sub Jail, Peermade, Idukki District, Kerala State since 19th March, 2009 as

convict No. 918. If that be so, the appellant shall be released forthwith.

The appeal stands disposed of in  the above terms.

   ……………………………………J. (D.K. JAIN)

    ……………………………………J. (R.M. LODHA)

NEW DELHI, APRIL 06, 2009.